As the internet and related technologies progress in the modern world, abstract goods become easier and easier to share. The means of publication has become essentially free for much of the world population (but by no means all of it or even the majority of it). These changing circumstances must, necessarily, precipitate a fundamental change in how such goods are perceived.
First, let us define the term. For the purpose of this argument, an abstract good is anything that has no scarcity. For example, consider an idea. I have an idea which I can make use of. Then I tell you the idea. Now you have use of the idea. But, I still have use of that idea even though I told you about it. This is an example of something that has no scarcity. The same can be said of digital copies. I make a digital copy of work X. Then I make another copy of work X and give it to you. Now we both have a copy of work X. Both of us have use of work X and neither one of us was deprived of it. That would be another thing that would not have scarcity.
There is another angle to the situation, however. Someone has to create a work or an idea before it can be infinitely copied. That person has to acquire scarce resources in order to live. This means that a person must have some economic support in order to live while creating ideas. If all resources needed to survive were freely available with no scarcity, there would be no problem; then all abstract goods could be shared freely without worrying about the creators. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
Currently, the solution to the problem of supporting the creators of abstract goods is creating an artificial scarcity. That is, trying to make an abstract good exactly the same as a material good. While this works in the short term because people don’t understand the distribution channels, it cannot work in the long term. If it’s easy to copy something from me without depriving me of it, why would I complain if you copied it? (This is assuming I am not one of the people trying to make abstract behave as material.) I’m certainly not deprived of what was copied.
In fact, this trend is starting to show up on the internet. People are copying files of all sorts using technologies such as bittorrent. This includes such things as TV programs or music. Also, we see people using things such as the Creative Commons to try and use the existing frameworks to accomplish sharing. The sheer number of people currently participating in "piracy" these days underscores the fact that people simply don’t see why something abstract shouldn’t be copied.
I don’t know what the ultimate economic structure will turn out to be. Somehow, the folks creating the abstract goods need to be compensated in order to live. On the other hand, abstract goods are not really goods to be traded. Of course a physical book should have a price; there is a cost to produce it. Likewise, a physical record or CD. Similarly, there should be a cost to having a musician perform live. Or for a movie theatre to project a film. These are all physical operations. But should the content of the film or the music itself or the contents of the book be considered property? My contention is that it should not and this is where things are currently going wrong. And it also seems that the idea of something abstract being property is not intuitive to many people. Hence, as it becomes easier to copy things, things are being copied more freely.
Well, that’s about it for my slightly incoherent ramble on the subject.